New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Will Republicans eventually be pro-gay marriage?

although certainly more democrats are pro gay marriage than republicans, there are sizeable numbers of "religiously inclined" people in both parties who believe that gay marriage is a violation of scripture - whether that book is the bible, the talmud, or the quran. this isn't a question of where you are on the political continuum. examples abound of left wing governments which arrest, hang, and otherwise harass those perceived to be gay, let alone simply not endorsing gay marriage.

if your religion says gay marriage is an abomination, or interracial marriage, or interfaith marriage, then your rock of gibraltar is simply going to have to be that church, since in secular american society we don't impose such shibboleths, by acclaim or any other means.

i'm perfectly okay with anyone being gay - even toe tapping republicans in airport bathrooms - which is evidently some sort of taboo to those on the political left. hypocrisy abounds both in the toe tapper, and those who want to make an example of him
 
as seen on tv said:
although certainly more democrats are pro gay marriage than republicans, there are sizeable numbers of "religiously inclined" people in both parties who believe that gay marriage is a violation of scripture - whether that book is the bible, the talmud, or the quran. this isn't a question of where you are on the political continuum. examples abound of left wing governments which arrest, hang, and otherwise harass those perceived to be gay, let alone simply not endorsing gay marriage.

if your religion says gay marriage is an abomination, or interracial marriage, or interfaith marriage, then your rock of gibraltar is simply going to have to be that church, since in secular american society we don't impose such shibboleths, by acclaim or any other means.

i'm perfectly okay with anyone being gay - even toe tapping republicans in airport bathrooms - which is evidently some sort of taboo to those on the political left. hypocrisy abounds both in the toe tapper, and those who want to make an example of him
Click to expand...

Despite the hysteria of the homophobes....nobody is going to "force" a church to perform a marriage between two men or two women.

Politically though, it is clear from that article that the demographic that the GOP currently appeals to in opposing same-sex marriage....is shrinking. And the trend-lines of "What is accepted" is moving further AWAY from denying gay rights, even among Republicans.

As with many issues, this is apparently a paradigm shift in the Republican Party.
 
GordonGecko said:
Despite the hysteria of the homophobes....nobody is going to "force" a church to perform a marriage between two men or two women.

Politically though, it is clear from that article that the demographic that the GOP currently appeals to in opposing same-sex marriage....is shrinking. And the trend-lines of "What is accepted" is moving further AWAY from denying gay rights, even among Republicans.

As with many issues, this is apparently a paradigm shift in the Republican Party.
Click to expand...

Has anyone ever explained why they use the word marriage? I'm all for it but there should be another word, as a marriage is between a man and a woman.

As on most subjects, maybe I'm behind the times and maybe there is a logical answer for this.

If I was a law maker and there were two choices to vote for on the table:
1) Allow gay marriage
or
2) Allow gay union (or some other acceptable word)

I would vote for 2 but not 1. They are very different but I'm good with having the same laws surrounding them.
 
I think that if they want to reclaim the fiscally conservative, but socially liberal moderates, they will have to at least on a national level no longer oppose it. Locally, I don't think it will make much difference.
 
Despite the hysteria of the homophobes....nobody is going to "force" a church to perform a marriage between two men or two women.
Click to expand...


But they will force a church to give out condoms against their religious beliefs ...you lefty are never to be trusted
 
SW48 said:
Has anyone ever explained why they use the word marriage? I'm all for it but there should be another word, as a marriage is between a man and a woman.

As on most subjects, maybe I'm behind the times and maybe there is a logical answer for this.

If I was a law maker and there were two choices to vote for on the table:
1) Allow gay marriage
or
2) Allow gay union (or some other acceptable word)

I would vote for 2 but not 1. They are very different but I'm good with having the same laws surrounding them.
Click to expand...

And naturally you couldn't object to a gay couple saying they were "married" not "unioned" (freedome of speech).....so if you agree to all that....why not just let it be called "marriage"???
 
connieb said:
I think that if they want to reclaim the fiscally conservative, but socially liberal moderates, they will have to at least on a national level no longer oppose it. Locally, I don't think it will make much difference.
Click to expand...

I think there's a definite move to libertarianism....and AWAY from religious conservatism. And the Religious Right will either acede to that or be apathetic and still stick with the GOP as long as they give them rhetorical "red meat"....i.e. "family values", etc.....but offer nothing legislatively.

In other words as long as the GOP "puts on a show" of supporting traditionalism, but doesn't actually DO anything about it.
 
Despite the hysteria of the homophobes....nobody is going to "force" a church to perform a marriage between two men or two women.

How can you be so sure? I beleive it was this time last year the useful idiot that calls himself the Mayor of Boston was ready to drive out a perfectly legitimate buisness from its city because the owner simply stated in a interview that he "believed in traditional marriage".

I don't think it's the hysteria of the homophobes you need to worry about.
 
They can call it what they want.

You can't redefine a word that so many have based their lives on.
 
SOL...have the looneys at Westboro Baptist Church been "forced" to marry any Iraq/Afghan war veterans???

Fundy churchs will still be free to hate whomever they please.
 
GordonGecko said:
SOL...have the looneys at Westboro Baptist Church been "forced" to marry any Iraq/Afghan war veterans???

Fundy churchs will still be free to hate whomever they please.
Click to expand...

Apparently the so called "intellectually curious" will be able to do likewise.
 
I don't think marraige should be government sactioned at all. Outside of that, if one citizen has a right, all citiznes have that right.
 
what's the position of serial defenders of traditional marriage like repubs Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich?
 
GordonGecko said:
Despite the hysteria of the homophobes....nobody is going to "force" a church to perform a marriage between two men or two women.

Politically though, it is clear from that article that the demographic that the GOP currently appeals to in opposing same-sex marriage....is shrinking. And the trend-lines of "What is accepted" is moving further AWAY from denying gay rights, even among Republicans.

As with many issues, this is apparently a paradigm shift in the Republican Party.
Click to expand...

gecko - i think you may have missed the point. or maybe i have. i've detected zero "angst" that some feels THEIR church is going to be "forced" to perform gay marriages. rather, the debate seems to center around whether or not the "definition" of marriage inherently means one man and one woman, or can refer to other combinations/quantities. people who reconciled to gay relationships, or "legally recognized" civil union gay relationships short of marriage are apparently still drawing the line at the marriage ceremony itself.

since marriage is an inherently religious ritual, one possible solution is to have governments get out of the marriage business. then parishoners who feel threatened by "gay marriage" won't be able to focus their umbrage on the government itself. if gay people find a church which allows and promotes gay marriage, they can have one. but perhaps nobody should be "married" by the government - whether you're homosexual or heterosexual, perhaps the most the govenment should do is promote a "civil union". if you're not a church member - even if heterosexual - maybe its not a marriage in the eyes of the church?

hand in hand with this, i think the special tax rates which differentiate between singles and married people should be phased out. Increase the standard deduction for children, becasue they're unable to work, and must be supported by an adult. but no claiming deductions for adults pretending to be kids who are out of school, or spouses/civil union partners who choose not to work.

if you're disabled and unable to work, that's a different and reasonable deduction. but not "marriage" per se.

my theory - without a scintilla of proof - is that if you took the income tax and inheritance shielding effects of "marriage" away, there would be a whole lot LESS clamoring for marriage by gays. I've heard from more than one person that he intends to pass his expensive shore property on to his "longtime companion" tax free as a consequence of marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top